Alasiter Scott wrote:

>I suspect that a musicologist would not have been financially even close
>to instructing Carter Ruck, which is a very high profile and well known
>firm of lawyers, if it had not been for the "conditional fee"; without
>it an inferior lawyer would have probably prosecuted the case less
>effectively, if it had even been brought.

On the other hand the law should not be restricted only to those who
can afford to pay.  It is unfair that "the little guy" should not be
able to defend himself when needed.  This is a far more fundamental
principle than the present case under discussion.  May that never be
changed.  Carter Ruck incidentally is the country's leading intellectual
property specialist, another reason why they were interested in the case.
It's certainly not a case of "ambulance chasing".

As with any complex issue there are more sides to the story than meet
the eye.  Much as we might like Hyperion - and I have enough of their
work to claim shares!  - it's irrelevant.  Law is based on objectivity,
not on "who our friends are".  Otherwise, it's mob rule, however popular
that might be.  Before we rush to conclusions about this specific case,
too, it might be fair to read the actual details of the case and the
reasons the judge gave for his decision.

As consumers, we naturally want what we think is best for us.  But
with so many others at the trough, why single out for blame someone
who made the music playabler in the first place?  If people are serious
about wanting quality music, they have to accept that it won't come from
nowhere.  Note, too, that there's no more talk about "million pound"
settlements.

Anne
[log in to unmask]